On 2014-03-02, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 02/03/2014 16:45, Grant Edwards wrote:
That's irrelevent. The actual location of the memory containing the
struct object (static, stack, heap, shared)
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
Note that, technically, Grant is correct as long as you grant (heh)
that a structure may have an invisible member, the virtual function
table pointer. C++ only (I don't believe C has virtual functions -
but it may
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
The quote you make from the C standard doesn't mention malloc, so
you're arguing different things. It's not the compiler that casts
the malloc return value to the struct
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
Sure, for some definition of usable. Overhead such as block
size, freelist pointer etc., are obviously outside of the
returned block. But the array size that's specified in a call to
new [], and the vptr, are definitely
On 2014-03-02, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid Wrote in message:
On 2014-02-24, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you think that? The address of the start of your malloc'ed
structure is the same as the address of the first element.
On 02/03/2014 16:45, Grant Edwards wrote:
That's irrelevent. The actual location of the memory containing the
struct object (static, stack, heap, shared) doesn't matter. The
address of the first field in a struture object _is_ the address of
the structure object.
You say struture, I'll say
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
Sure, for some definition of usable. Overhead such as block
size, freelist pointer etc., are obviously outside of the
returned block. But the array size that's specified
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 02/03/2014 16:45, Grant Edwards wrote:
That's irrelevent. The actual location of the memory containing the
struct object (static, stack, heap, shared) doesn't matter. The
address of the first field in a
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
Array size is inside the malloc block, but outside the struct
block. As you can see if you try to delete without the brackets
when you used new [], some runtimes will crash.
As in, you have to use delete [] x to correspond
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
}
so in that case, the array size is inside the malloc'd block, but it's
still invisible to the calling function.
Please quit using negative language when you're so vehemently
agreeing with me.
The data is sometimes not at the
On 2014-02-24, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/24/2014 11:05 AM, j.e.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
typedef struct {
int value;
} Number;
Number *o;
o = malloc(sizeof(*o));
o-value=3;
printf(o%p, o-value%p\n, o, o-value);
o0x9fe5008, o-value0x9fe5008
Is the compiler
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid Wrote in message:
On 2014-02-24, Michael Torrie torr...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would you think that? The address of the start of your malloc'ed
structure is the same as the address of the first element. Surely
this is logical?
Not only is it logical,
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Dave Angel da...@davea.name wrote:
The quote you make from the C standard doesn't mention malloc, so
you're arguing different things. It's not the compiler that casts
the malloc return value to the struct type.
C++ does implicitly convert the result, and
On 02/24/2014 11:05 AM, j.e.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
typedef struct {
int value;
} Number;
Number *o;
o = malloc(sizeof(*o));
o-value=3;
printf(o%p, o-value%p\n, o, o-value);
o0x9fe5008, o-value0x9fe5008
Is the compiler borked?
Why would you think that? The address of the
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014, at 13:19, Michael Torrie wrote:
Why would you think that? The address of the start of your malloc'ed
structure is the same as the address of the first element. Surely this
is logical? And of course all this is quite off topic.
That's not helpful - the problem, in
15 matches
Mail list logo
